Alternate Best Actor 1978: Results

5. Steve McQueen in An Enemy of the People - McQueen doesn't fail entirely in his against type performance, but at the same time it isn't a complete success.

Best Scene: Speech.

4. Elliott Gould in The Silent Partner - Gould delivers a terrific atypical turn as the lead to a thriller who is a bit more calculating than the average "wrong man".

Best Scene: Needing a new key.

3. Harvey Keitel in Fingers - Keitel delivers a fantastic turn of a man defined by a strange pull between a world of art and a world of violence.

Best Scene: Visiting his mother.

2. Alan Bates in The Shout - Bates delivers a wholly a captivating portrayal of a man seemingly empowered by a life of mistakes, and a man broken by them.

Best Scene: The shout.

1. Richard Pryor in Blue Collar - Good predictions Michael McCarthy and GM. Pryor proves his abilities are far greater than he was given credit for, in his dynamic, intense, and downright powerful portrayal of a man fed-up by the system he is stuck in.

Best Scene: Explaining his compromise.

Updated Overall:

Next Year: 1978 Supporting (found a lineup)

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Elliott Gould in The Silent Partner

Elliott Gould did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Miles Cullen in The Silent Partner.

The Silent Partner is a very underrated rather good thriller about a bank teller secretly stealing money from the bank/a bank robber Harry Reikle (Christopher Plummer looking his most Michael Fassbenderesque) during a heist.

One of the features that makes this film standout within its genre is one Elliott Gould in the central role. Gould being one of the atypical leading men that helped define the seventies. Here in the role the "wrong man" more traditionally although the twist here, provided well by screenwriter Curtis Hanson, is here he is the right man in a way. We open though in the film with the more expected point of our Hitchcockian style hero, seemingly just minding his business as usual. Although this unusual hero, is indeed that, as we have Gould providing a bit of an off-beat presence, not quite as off-beat as his brilliant Philip Marlowe from The Long Goodbye, however similar in terms of the way Gould takes an atypical approach. This time again an effective approach in this sense, as he doesn't overdo the idiosyncrasy, however creates a proper sense of Miles as this bookworm type, most interested in a new fish than anything else. Gould is fantastic early on though is as much as he is effective as seeming a man of no importance on the cursory surface, we are immediately granted his greater intelligence and ability early on. This is almost entirely played in his eyes, and brilliantly so. Whether this be his quick calculating glance at an unused robbery note to the bank, or his examination of his attractive co-worker Julie (Susannah York) who he is acting as a false date for so his boss can attempt an affair with her, Gould grants a greater sense into the mind of Miles, even as he stays the slightly affable dullard for most.

The film doesn't stop to take a moment where Miles goes, okay I'm going to steal the bank money by tricking a robber, but we wholly granted a sense of why through Gould's nuanced performance. This in just fantastic moments of examining the man he knows is the robber as he shows the man breaking the idea down, and then conducting this certainty in his manner of a man who is deciding to take something for himself for once. This is where we get some really terrific work from Gould as he provides a different type of hero for a Hitchcockian style thriller, in that Miles isn't the tricked every-man, but rather the manipulative genius usually left to the villain. Gould though manages to create something notable in crafting the calculating method of Miles, largely through a lot internalized moments in his performance. This in he presents a man who rarely shuts off, with this careful examination of things, and does so much in his work in just reactionary moments that gives a different flavor to this thriller. This as even when we see him interact with the bank robber Reikel, and attempt to draw him away from his trail, there is this wonderful lively sense in Gould's work. This in showing a guy very much working on sort of outside his typical bounds with a bit of energy within that idea, but also very much the sense of assurance in the man in trying to make things go according to plan for himself. I love the way that Miles in a way would basically always have the upper hand if it weren't for the fact that Reikel, unlike Miles, is more than willing to use violence to get what he wants.

Now within this idea Gould also finds well the way Miles grows from the experience, as his success with the plot seems to grow this even greater confidence with a bit more willingness to step forward. Gould doesn't show a completely changed man, but rather a man who is more willing to put forth the qualities he already had properly. This is perhaps best shown in what was for me the true hidden gem within the film, that of the character of Elaine played by Celine Lomez. A woman who initially lies about being a worker at the rest home for Miles's ailing father, but Miles soon deciphers is working for Reikel. Miles though romances her anyways while revealing his cards to her and they genuinely fall in love. Gould has great chemistry with Lomez, and most importantly shows so well the sort of ability of Miles to be both charming while conducting himself with this specific calculation. Their chemistry goes beyond their romance though as the two end up scheming to help secure the money Miles stole again, in a scene that is a highlight of the film. This in the playful chemistry they have that is so terrific, with Gould playing back but also being careful, while Lomez puts on the part of a harmless bank costumer while trying to hide her greed. It's a marvelous scene that honestly makes their relationship work so well, that I do wish things had gone differently for the rest of the film. Not in a way that hurts the film, rather the two really strike up an essential endearing connection that wished the two could've ridden off into the sunset together. This is, that while he did find good chemistry with York, which is more compromised naturally as Gould shows Miles to be always a bit compromised in their scenes together, it just doesn't have that spark he has with Lomez. Not a criticism of the film, or Gould's performance however. Now as terrific as Gould is finding this sort of new approach for the thriller hero, he is also great in the more expected material. This in just pulling us into Miles, as the great "heroic" performances should, and most importantly developing each stage of the plot. This in creating the real human connection in reflecting the fear and tension of dealing with Reikel at times, as well as the heartbreak and anger in reaction towards the man's more heinous actions. Gould draws us into Miles's experience like the best Hitchcockian style heroes, and pulls us right into this plot in the best of ways. This is a very strong performance from Elliott Gould as he does offer a bit of a nice variation on this type of character, while also fulfilling the needed expectations of such a role.

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Richard Pryor in Blue Collar

Richard Pryor did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Zeke Brown in Blue Collar.

Blue Collar is a terrific film following three fed-up auto workers who discover corruption in their union.

Richard Pryor was and is known as a legendary figure in the world of stand up comedy. Sadly his cinematic career pales in comparison to this, as he seemed largely misused by Hollywood for much of his career. Notable examples of this being Superman III, or in the same year as this film in The Wiz. This where executives seemed to say "you're funny be funny", in poorly thought out scenarios that expected Pryor to make something out of nothing, honestly frequently less than nothing. Sadly any chance for Pryor to really find a better path for himself was cut short by his drug addition and failing health. Now there were examples of films that found some decent material for Pryor to work with, although even these were typically pretty limited roles, Blue Collar however stands in a completely different league here, as a film that seemed to understand an even greater potential in Pryor than one might've expected. Now interesting enough, from the outset of the film, it kind of pulls you into thinking this might be more an expected, if a bit grittier, comedy of some working class guys. This with perhaps Harvey Keitel, filling in the Gene Wilder role, though with an actor like Keitel in that role, that perhaps tells you a little bit that might not be the case after all. Early on though we do get a bit more of Pryor's expected comedic presence as they complain about their conditions and the Union that seems to only serve themselves. These early moments though being in more jesting frustrations, with some nice chemistry in creating a general camaraderie between Pryor's Zeke, Keitel's Jerry and Yaphet Kotto's Smokey as work buddies. Pryor nicely bring a comic charm to these early moments with the guys just hanging early on, and we are granted a sense of friendship in mutual misery, which is realized in joking at their mutually difficult plight.

We are granted though that this will be a bit more in an early scene, where we see Zeke with his wife and family at home, when an IRS agent comes back for a bit of additional auditing. Now initially we do get a bit of comedy as Zeke claims a bit of additional children and Pryor is hilarious as he names off some additional well known names as some extra kids, while his wife grabs a few extra kids from the neighborhood to "fill in". It's a good comic setup and works in that sense. Although as the IRS man presses Pryor naturally and quite powerfully segues to something far more serious as Zeke speaks his difficult plight of having so little money to begin with and just scraping by. Pryor is quite simply incredible in the moment as the years of frustration are brimming in his eyes and his voice being so moving as there is such a sense of defeat even in the anger of his delivery. Honestly watching this scene ought to shatter anyone's image that all Pryor could be is funny, as there is such a real raw power to the scene that is remarkable. This is as Pryor not only brings such an intensity to the moment, but we are granted a real sense of the man's history of just getting beaten down by one thing after another in the nature of that intensity found in his performance. This made all the more potent as Pryor rips the rug out from under us, because in the scene we begin laughing but are shocked into seeing the real tragedy of Zeke's life. This is but a preview in a way to his performance however, as we see this early instance of the real anger that goes beyond just complaints shared between friends.

There is then the progress of Pryor's work which shows this growing sense of aggravation in the man. Early on we still have moments of a more expected presence of Pryor with that comedic edge, that is well realized by him here. That is he offers a light comic edge, he doesn't overplay the moments, making Zeke just a naturally kind of funny guy, rather than giving an overtly comic performance. It's used so well though because in turn we see the anger as all the more dynamic in his performance. This in that as the story goes on, and the three men find evidence of the union corruption, and the situation only becomes more sever. Pryor is outstanding in the moments of realizing such searing hatred towards the foreman and his union rep, showing a man who has just had it with his experience. It is raw, but also we see the tiring quality within Pryor's work. There is a remarkable degradation in the man as no matter what they try nothing seems to change. There's a great moment where Zeke is brought in to deal with an issue between him and the foreman. Pryor is outstanding in creating this scene as one of endless frustration and hate of the man just festering as his demands are forgotten, while everyone else's seem easily satisfied. Every word Pryor brings an ache of the lies and waste of time. His reactions filled with just defeat towards the union rep, of a man who knows he will get no help from any side, and can only resort to outrage.  The union no way intimidated or changed by their evidence instead seek ways in which to deal with the men in some ways, violennt if necessary.

This begins first with negotiation for Zeke however, who they offer a position to be the new Union rep. Although we do have a fantastic moment in the heartbreak Pryor delivers as he learns of corruption's violence, this as his eyes fill with disbelief at the action, and a sense of defeat though within his whole existence, Zeke ends up taking the position. This is much to Jerry's dismay who question Zeke's choice, in a downright amazing scene for Pryor. Pryor is brilliant in this scene as he brings such a vivid sense of the broken fight as speaks of his choice. Pryor so humanizes this decision though that you wholly understand Zeke in the moment even as he basically joins in the corruption. There is such devastation in his eyes, and honesty in his voice though as Pryor speaks to his family's struggle because of his race, and it is with such genuine sense of a life of frustrations that we see this decision. Pryor is downright heartbreaking in the scene as in the moment he fully realizes a man who has been struggling for an inch, and as he explains what he is willing to compromise for that inch, it is difficult to quickly damn him as Pryor makes it so real in the all to human explanation. He is devastating to watch to watch in the scene, as the whole life of desperation is wound within his expression as Zeke makes his decision. This leaving Jerry in a precarious situation, who refuses to compromise leaving him no choice but to go to the FBI lest be murdered by the corrupt Union. This leaving a moment of confrontation of Zeke and Jerry in factory. This scene is incredible as Pryor and Keitel, are again so exceptional in the scene by making it so honest. We see a fight in this scene that could only exist between former friends, as the venom in each other and the sense of betrayal each exude seems to go their very core. Their intensity is messy in creating such a sense of each man taking all of everything that happened on each other in the moment, in what is also a heartbreaking scene, as we see all that old camaraderie gone, purged from them due to the corrupt system, but making the fight all the more abrasive and personal. This as both seem to not only be lashing out at each other but within it every thing they've gone through in life. This is a great performance by Richard Pryor. This as he peels away his expected presence, to give such a convincing and shattering depiction of a man being swallowed by the system. It's a shame his career didn't allow for more chances like this, as this shows he was far more capable than just being a funny man.

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Harvey Keitel in Fingers

Harvey Keitel did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jimmy Fingers in Fingers.

Fingers is the original film about a man caught between a world of crime and musical aspirations.

I say original film, as I previously reviewed Romain Duris in The Beat That My Heart Skipped, the perhaps more artfully directed remake of the film from 2005. Both are good films though in their own right (though the sex scenes might tell you a little too much about its writer/director), and to inhabit slightly different experiences almost entirely realized within the central performance. Where Duris gave a strong portrayal of a normal guy caught up into a very difficult situation, Keitel doesn't something entirely different with the part. I'll admit when going into watching the film I thought I was more likely going to see a variation on Keitel's work in Mean Streets, which would've been closer to Duris's eventual approach, but Keitel genuinely surprised me.  Where Duris portrayed a man who understood his situation in a sense, even though he was often powerless to deal with it, Keitel portrays a man who in unaware of it. This is fundamental in his approach to the part though which is that Jimmy might be a bit mentally ill, or at least mentally off from the duality of being raised by his criminal father and musician mother, who also appears to be a bit mentally off herself. Keitel's performance then is just not of this hood, or even conflicted hood. It is rather revealing of his Jimmy Fingers as a man wholly out of place in his existence in a way, though technically fashioned by that existence.

Keitel doesn't portray the character as having two sides, at least not exactly. We open the film as he is practicing Bach on the piano. Keitel portraying the uproarious passion of the man within it. This passion for music though doesn't stop once he stops playing. This as we instantly see him trying to entice a young woman while dragging along a radio that is constantly playing some his favorite music. Keitel excitedly speaks every word as Jimmy speaks about the music he loves so much. It is without hesitation that we see this passion from Keitel, where he emphasizes in a way that for Jimmy music is this essential part of him. He speaks of it as though others should just understand at as he does, and his eyes blaring with this rich sense of belief in every word of his. This in portraying Jimmy as just not a music lover, but also as this believer that everyone around him ought to love music as he does. Keitel's performance managing to find this natural, by in a way making it somewhat mentally off, in one way or another, in these moments. This isn't to say he undercuts the passion, quite the contrary, but rather he expresses a man who finds music as the truth of his life and life in general. This though with a lack of awareness that others do not share this same treatment, and showing essentially an anger when there are others who do respect the art as he does.

The scenes where Jimmy speaks to his father (Michael V. Gazzo) Keitel does not hide his excitement at the prospect of the audition, something this father is even generally supportive of. In this time though we also have his father give Jimmy two money collection jobs, as basically his muscle. This may seem at odds with the artistic man that is Jimmy in the opening scenes, however that would be misguided.  Instead at the first money pick up job, it is with his radio that we're storming in. This where Keitel is beaming as he explains his love of the song coming from the radio, and just trying to inquire ways of how his radio can be supported. The man, who owes Jimmy's father money though doesn't relent to that, or Jimmy's initially gentle demands for the money. Jimmy in turn then violently accosts the man, and what is so unnerving in this is how natural Keitel makes it. It isn't a shift rather it is the same passion within the man, though now for different purpose where Keitel delivers the same intensity found in his love of music, now for violence. Keitel delivers on that menace but what makes it remarkable is how it segues in the moment with such ease as Keitel portrays Jimmy's as singular, despite the two interests seem at opposite ends of one another. This is made all the more clear when he gets into a violent argument with men questioning his radio, where Keitel's snap of threatening the man as this near instinct of a man who has this specific sensitivity.

The sensitivity that Keitel does not turn into making a "good" man but rather the man that he is. This as we see him in any instance, including his interactions with women. Keitel portrays this desperate need for some deeper show of affection, that is palatable and seething in these moments. There is a distress in his eyes of a man looking for some greater connection that he never finds. The same can be seen within when we see him playing piano, and now failing to do so for an audition. Again Keitel emphasizes the frustration in his passion that seem displaced, and in his failure to direct it in a away for others to understand. We find that though with his scenes with his father and his one important scene with his mother. His father who in general is more open, though prompting Jimmy to commit more violent acts, and his essential scene with his mother. In both there is a searing need in Keitel's eyes of a boy just looking for approval in his parents, with very differing expectations, and in turn grants sense to the man who thrusts himself so fiercely into a life of both art and violence. Keitel manages to create then this strange, yet convincing, extreme of the man who in a way becomes deranged by the oddness of the arithmetic that makes up his life. Keitel finding these emotional extremes then in the end believable fashion, as we see the man throwing himself still into song, but then just the same as we see his violent acts at the end of the film. Keitel defines Jimmy as a man defined by his passion, and does so powerfully whether it be through an elegant concerto or a brutal murder.

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Alan Bates in The Shout

Alan Bates did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Charles Crossley in The Shout.

The Shout is an odd film, in that way only 70's films would be odd, about a drifter, who claims to have a mystery power, coming into the lives of a married couple (John Hurt and Susannah York).

Alan Bates appearing as the mysterious stranger Crossley, actually begins the film seemingly in not at all mysterious circumstances. This as he is simply one of the men keeping score at a cricket game on tranquil grounds, but I suppose if Tim Curry is helping you keep score there might be something up. Bates appears to speak of something being not quite right within his own performance, and not just alluding to his haggard appearance and clothes that doesn't seem to fit his surroundings in the least. Crossley begins though to speak of telling his fellow scorer, which Bates textures with a grim and foreboding quality as he speaks, to tell the story of man whose wife loved him, however things didn't turn out well. A quiet mania in Bates's eyes as he speaks, and in turn crafts quite the intriguing starting point for this story. This story that seems tranquil enough at first as we meet experimental musician Anthony (Hurt) being prodded along to church by his seemingly loving wife Rachel (York). After church though he runs into Bates's Crossley who fashions here a presence that is alien to the majority of his role. This in delivering this innate intensity in his startling manner. Bates's oddly shaken manner and ghastly eyes allude to some strange state of this man before we even learn much of him. His first words though are to the nature of the soul, which Bates delivers in this fascinating way of speaking to himself as much as speaking to anyone else. This sort of self-pondering of a man who doesn't seem entirely there, and even Bates's expression seems to evoke a man's mind having been permanently transplanted elsewhere.

Bates's work evokes a man who has been through some horror, however he has come through it with a strange combination of illumination and trauma. Bates's carrying this magnetism here even as he walks as a drifter along the road next to Hurt, before showing up at his house and instantly inviting himself back in. Bates's performance is off-putting in his initial conversations, though that is an understatement, as he quietly delivers these odd statements with alluring yet chilling quality within each word. There is though this near detachment that Bates brings as though Crossley is reciting stories of the past. These stories that begin to take a bit more shape as he describes his time in Australia which included murdering of his own children. Bates delivers this simply as part of the story with this particularly eerie conviction of this sentiment of leaving no trace of one's self. It is said as though it would be any part of the story, though not quite just a sociopath, but rather this darker measure of the man who seems to view his existence within some alternative lens. Bates work is altogether brilliant in this scene though as he manages to create this odd supernatural creature within Crossley, while also still revealing a tangible humanity within him. This balance, that I wouldn't quite describe as elegant, but is nonetheless fascinating to watch within Bates's performance. This as Bates Crossley as though a person whose achieved some separate plane of existence in the current state, though having achieved this through some experience that placed him there.

This continues as Crossley speaks to Anthony of the titular shout as some ability he has learned from aborigines, a yell that kills those who hear it. Bates speaks again of it as this almost idea of a religious experience as he apparently invites Anthony to listen, while also warning him of his dangers. The actual shouting scene being brilliantly performed by Bates in his movement though as though he is conducting the earth itself as something in his control, before committing this extreme upheaval within himself before yelling out much to Anthony's horror, despite taking precautionary measures beforehand. Bates becomes increasingly this nefarious force beyond this point, this in portraying Crossley as an interloper manipulating Anthony and Rachel as he sees fit. Bates's work in itself is incredible here, this as he offers this sort of mesmerizing command within his own presence. This even in his disheveled appearance, Bates presents this ominous power that exudes from him every second he is onscreen. This continues though as he speaks to Rachel of essentially casting a spell of lust on her, which too Bates delivers with this combination of a more genuine lust but also this demonic allure as his eyes create an unnerving quality. This as we see their tryst it is a strange affair, still so effectively performed by Bates, as he presents Crossley's interactions with an animalistic Rachel, less as man loving a woman, but rather almost an owner conducting his pet to lavish and worship him. There is almost disgust in Bates as he compels this behavior in Rachel, without a sense of any joy or genuine pleasure from the experience. Bates portraying Crossley as seeming beyond that idea.

This experience though seems to bluntly end though as Crossley is arrested, though then we are shifted back to the framing device where that cricket field is beset by a storm, and it becomes clear we are on the ground of some type of asylum. Well here comes my interpretation on my end, and best that I do is offer my take on that. Although either way Bates's performance is outstanding here, what I see is the story he tells is of an imagined version of the man entering into the lives, likely of those he is jealous of or has imagined lives of for him to be jealous of. This is befitting that we have a mentally ill man crafting a version of himself whose mental problems provide almost some supernatural ability to change and control the lives around him. Bates in those scenes showing a man whose broken state empowers him, fitting to a mad man creating a fantasy that supports his existence. This then is in sharp contrast to the man we cut back to essentially having a mental breakdown back at the game as he is unable to finish his story. Bates delivers something particularly important then in this scene as he no longer has that power within his presence, and rather portrays a straight mania. This fear within the man of being taken away and controlled by others in this attempt to escape. Bates in this scene just showing a man who is mentally ill and terrified within this state. This in a way though the same man of his story deep down, but now without a power from his illness. Although technically in some ways a brief performance, this is a an amazing performance by Bates. This as he manages to make something vivid within the concept of the character and not get lost within it. This as his work in itself is compelling but goes beyond that in crafting a captivating portrayal of technically the ravings of a mad man as a cohesive idea.

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Steve McQueen in An Enemy of the People

Steve McQueen did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Thomas Stockmann in An Enemy of the People.

An Enemy of the People isn't a terrible, but rather a largely inert drama that unfortunately cannot live beyond its allegory.

This role is a major departure for the king of cool at the tail end of his unfortunately all too brief career, given he plays a period role that is alien compared to the majority of his roles. Although we've seen McQueen play period before, typically westerns, this is a very different role for him as there isn't the slightest sense of playing within the idea of cool, but rather attempting to wholly disappear inside a very different role for himself. This evidently was a passion project for McQueen, in a self-described attempt to prove to people that he could act. Well he perhaps should've just referred them to his career best work in Papillon, that which used his presence in part, however showed a far greater emotional range than he had ever showed before. Honestly that is where McQueen excelled as an actor, and perhaps where he should've explored more of as a performer. For example, he was the intended lead for William Friedkin's Sorcerer, where he would've been an ideal lead, in a role that again would've utilized his best qualities as an onscreen while also tasking him to "act", by delivering more within that presence. I bring this up as this role is a somewhat mistaken attempt to wholly erase one's understanding of McQueen as a performer. This is pretty obvious right from the outset as his long hair, beard and glasses, all seem to say "this is not the McQueen you know".

Well in this sense, the performance is not a failure as McQueen does successfully not fall upon his typical presence. He becomes believable enough within the role as this more seasoned intellectual doctor, by not calling upon one ounce of his typical king of cool presence. I'll say I didn't even find it jarring to see McQueen as such, as he wholly gives himself to the performance and clearly gives a devoted turn. The role, despite the dramatic intentions of the piece, is limited. This as we see this doctor who must do what he believes is right, which is call out the town's local water supply that is poisonous, despite the town's top brass, including his brother, wanting to silence this as any removal of the water supply will slow down the progress of the town. So we have the set-up then of the character, of this man with conviction and the family man. The latter element brief as his interactions with any of his family are as to the point as possible. This as even his relationship with Bibi Andersson as the doctor's wife, is barely even touched upon even with the unlikely pairing of performers. The two I'll give credit don't exactly lack chemistry, they just also don't really have the moments to realize any. The same goes for the whole idea of the doctor and the family. We never get a real sense of them as people, before getting into the dramatic situation they are in, making it so they are more figures to voice the message of the story, rather than living as people who also speak the message.

I think the greatest failure in this is in the characters of the doctor and his brother Peter (Charles Durning) who are at opposite ends of one another. We are granted no real history between the two, and you'd never even guess they were brothers. I guess I can take this one from the performers a bit in this instance as neither McQueen or Durning really grant the sense of any sibling familiarity even that of a distant relationship. The screenplay does not help them at all in this regard, as their scenes together are only of an argument of the same points with Peter yelling at the doctor, and the doctor looking solemn. This is much of McQueen's work here honestly, that of just keeping a slightly disturbed, annoyed but still determined expression as others threat and berate him. McQueen to his credit does this with enough of the sense of the state of the doctor but little more than that. The rest of the time McQueen largely is looking dignified as this man of importance, the town's good doctor. Well again, McQueen delivers this with that different presence than was typically expected from him, however I won't say even this makes that much of an impact. McQueen finally gets a bit more to do as the doctor gets to plead his case among the collective people, fighting for his beliefs and against the idea of mob mentality. Well McQueen delivers this speech with a decisive passion and strength of conviction in his voice and eyes. We see the same soon after when the man refuses an offer to join the corruption delivering a earnest rejection of the values with the sense of the weight of the decision on his brow and just exasperation in his voice. McQueen doesn't compeltely fail to reinvent himself here, but this role isn't ideal for that reinvention. It is a limited role that McQueen only can do so much with, and I will say does falter a bit with in certain elements of it, namely the central relationships. I think that it is as much of a problem within the material as McQueen work however, McQueen doesn't overcome it. This performance is not a revelation, but it is a decent curiosity of an attempt by McQueen to expand his repertoire, though sadly at a time in his career where he would not be able to ever make a second attempt later on.

Alternate Best Actor 1978

And the Nominees Were Not:

Harvey Keitel in Fingers

Richard Pryor in Blue Collar

Alan Bates in The Shout

Elliott Gould in The Silent Partner

Steve McQueen in An Enemy of the People

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Results

5. Christopher Reeve in Superman- Reeve has some weaknesses in his performance but it is hard to think of an actor more fitting for the role of Superman.

Best Scene: Superman sees that he has failed.

4. Dustin Hoffman in Straight Time- Hoffman gives a solid performance that overcomes the fact that he doesn't exactly fit the part, although it seems he could have gone further with the role.

Best Scene: Max confronts his worthless driver.

3. Anthony Hopkins in Magic- Hopkins is quite effective in portraying all acts of a man and his puppet who he is a little too friendly with.

Best Scene: Corky tries not to use Fats for five minutes.

2. Donald Pleasence in Halloween- Pleasence gives a great performance that adds so effectively to the atmosphere of dread found in his film.

Best Scene: Dr. Loomis describes Micheal Myers.

1. Peter Ustinov in Death on the Nile- Good Prediction Psifonian, feel free to name a year and a performance. Peter Ustinov is an absolute delight as Poirot acting as a witty entertaining guide for the audience to follow through the murder mystery.

Best Scene: Poirot reveals the murderer.

Overall Rank: 

1. Robert De Niro in The Deer Hunter
2. Richard Pryor in Blue Collar
3. Alan Bates in The Shout
4. Jon Voight in Coming Home
5. Peter Ustinov in Death on the Nile
6. Harvey Keitel in Fingers
7. Donald Pleasence in Halloween
   
8. Gary Busey in The Buddy Holly Story
9. Anthony Hopkins in Magic
10. Elliott Gould in The Silent Partner 
11. Ken Ogata in The Demon
12. Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers
13. Dustin Hoffman in Straight Time  
14. Bruno Ganz in Knife in the Head
15. Harvey Keitel in Blue Collar
16. Volker Spengler in In a Year of 13 Moons
17. Robert Shaw in Force 10 From Navarone
18. Christopher Reeve in Superman
19. Laurence Olivier in The Boys From Brazil
20. Gregory Peck in The Boys From Brazil 
21. Roberto Cobo in The Place Without Limits
22. John Hurt in Watership Down
23. John Travolta in Grease
24. Warren Beatty in Heaven Can Wait
25. Ryan O'Neal in The Driver
26. John Hurt in The Shout
27. Tom E. Lewis in The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith
28. Paul Sorvino in Slow Dancing in the Big City
29. Steve McQueen in An Enemy of the People
30. Richard Gere in Days of Heaven
31. Roy Scheider in Jaws 2 
32. James Caan in Comes a Horseman
33. Harrison Ford in Force 10 From Navarone
34. Ugo Tognazzi in La Cage aux Folles
35. Michel Serrault in La Cage aux Folles
36. Richard Dreyfuss in The Big Fix 
37. Sylvester Stallone in F.I.S.T
38. Peter Falk in The Brink's Job
39. Keith Carradine in Pretty Baby
40. George C. Scott in Movie Movie
41. Ken Foree in Dawn of the Dead 
42. Jackie Chan in Drunken Master
43. Kirk Douglas in The Fury
44. William Holden in Damien: Omen II
45. Kris Kristofferson in Convoy
46. Tommy Lee Jones in Eyes of Laura Mars 
47. Burt Reynolds in Hooper
48. Jack Nicholson in Goin' South 
49. Peter Falk in The Cheap Detective
50. Gordon Liu in The 36th Chamber of Shaolin
51. George Segal in Who is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe   
52. Luigi Ornaghi in The Tree of Wooden Clogs
53. Dirk Bogarde in Despair
54. Mark Hamill in Corvette Summer 
55. Richard Burton in Absolution
56. Robert Mitchum in The Big Sleep
57. Dominic Guard in Absolution 
58. David Emgee in Dawn of the Dead
59. Jonathan Scott-Taylor in Damien: Omen II
60. Fabrice Luchini in Perceval
61. Harry Hamlin in Movie Movie
62. Michael Caine in The Swarm
63. Brad Davis in Midnight Express
64. Alan Alda in Same Time, Next Year
65. Christopher Guard in The Lord of the Rings 
66. John Amplas in Martin
67. Richard Gere in Bloodbrothers 
68. Chevy Chase in Foul Play
69. John Travolta in Moment by Moment

Next Year: 1978 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Christopher Reeve in Superman

Christopher Reeve did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman in Superman.

Superman is a very entertaining super hero movie about Superman's origin to his first foe in Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman).

The casting of Superman is not actually an easy task in that there are a great deal of criteria that must be met. Firstly the actor needs to look the part of the all American man who stands up straight and has an honest face. Then the actor actually must be able to actually act. These two features are harder to come by then it might seem as the unfortunate truth is most of the best actors do not necessarily have an honest face, although I have to say Toshiro Mifune could have possibly been a perfect Japanese Superman in the 50's but I digress. It is a tricky case of casting but this film did seem to have the right man for the job with Christopher Reeve.

Christopher Reeve has just an honest look about him. There's no dark edge to him and he simply wears Superman's suit well. The suit does not seem strange with Reeve wearing as the values espoused by Superman are supported by Reeve's face. In terms of every action scene again Reeve fits the strength of the character. Reeve is not overly bulky here but he has just the right amount to seem graceful when he flies, and forceful when Superman needs to show off his strength. Physically speaking Reeve is just perfect for the role. He is everything Superman needs to be from the posture, to his face, his voice, even his hair completely just is Superman.

Well Reeve is the part physically but what of the other requirement which is the acting. Well Reeve, after Superman, proved himself to not be much of an actor. In all the his other roles Reeve has a certain awkwardness on the screen and tends to always be out acted like the way Morgan Freeman did in Street Smart. The funny thing is the awkwardness is still here in his portrayal of Superman's alter ego Clark Kent, who in this version is shown to be a nervous wimp. The awkwardness though is nicely played for laughs as the nerdy Clark Kent, and gives a rather enjoyable comic performance in all of the scenes as the purposeful antithesis of Superman.

As his performance as Superman, for the most part, Reeve delivers in just being the boy scout he should be.  Every heroic line has Reeve's delivers like a purely good man no matter what, so even when he is dealing with thieves is still is relatively gentle with them. This approach really does work particularly in the montage where Superman first shows himself, and really brings the hero that everyone could easily like and look up to. The approach though finds some problems though when he finally faces down to Superman's arch nemesis Lex Luthor. Reeve's attempts to be imposing fail rather miserably, and Hackman does completely own their scene together. 

Having a scene stolen you from Gene Hackman actually might be a bit of an honor but the point is that Reeve clearly can only go so far in the role when it comes to making Superman all that forceful. Of course Reeve does make up for it a bit with the big dramatic scene at the end when Superman finds he can't save everybody. Reeve does deliver and, although he might not make what Superman does believable, he does make it a whole lot less ridiculous through the emotional impact he brings to his scene through his heartfelt portrayal of Superman's grief. 

This is far from a perfect performance by Christopher Reeve as there are always the awkward line readings here and there. Luckily most of the awkwardness comes in the form of Clark Kent which are quite fitting for that character. It is clear even in this performance that Reeve is a limited actor, but where he succeeds with in Superman he really does succeed. Reeve just has the right look, the right unassuming charm, and the right style for the role. Although there are weaknesses here and there in his portrayal of the Man of Steel it is hard to see who would have been a more fitting actor to play Superman.

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Anthony Hopkins in Magic

Anthony Hopkins did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Bafta and a Golden Globe, for portraying Charles "Corky" Withers and his dummy Fats in Magic.

Magic is an effective enough version of that vaudeville old tale of the disturbing relationship between the ventriloquist and his dummy.

Anthony Hopkins is best known for portraying rather grand roles such as presidents, princes, kings, and of course a cannibalistic psychopath. The first act of this performance though is a very different type of character for Hopkins as Corky seems to be a fairly average Joe just trying to make it as an entertainer. It is rather strange to see Hopkins such a down to earth role like he is at the beginning, but Hopkins probably gives one of his natural performances in these early scenes. Hopkins is just really good in conveying just the basic desire for success and the frustrations in Corky with his failure he suffers just as the films opens.

There still does not seem to be too much trouble even when observing the stage performance of Corky. Hopkins plays Corky as a bit of a charmless sad sack on the stage as he tries his card tricks. This is the right approach though as Hopkins correctly makes the dummy Fats the star of the show with the loud boisterous mouth he gives the dummy. In the act Hopkins makes Corky the one who is dominated by the dummy which certainly plays off into where Corky ends up going as the film continues on. Hopkins though makes the act between Corky and Fats a convincing comedian routine of sorts with Fats being the loud mouth cracking jokes while Corky is the straight man who performs all the tricks. 

Everything still seems to be decent enough for Corky even though he is a little too adamant about his refusal to take a medical exam before performing a pilot. Corky though instead seeks out, in the Catskills, his old high school crush Peggy (Ann-Margret). Hopkins does something very different in his scenes with Ann-Margret and that is he is actually incredibly charming as he tries to woo her. In fact Hopkins is so warm and affection in this scene that it actually made me wish the film did not take the very dark turn it takes soon afterwards. Hopkins drifts in what seems more akin to Hannibal Lecter type of material though as Corky seems to talk to Fats all the time, even when he is not doing his act.

Hopkins's performance though is not at all like his later psychopathic work as Corky is someone who doesn't want to be a psychopath but can't help it. Hopkins's best scene in the film comes when his agent (Burgess Meredith) tests him by asking Corky not to do Fats voice for just five minutes. Hopkins is terrific in this scene as he internalizes the madness of Corky into a terrible pressure that he can't help but feel. The idea that a man simply can't help but plays with his dummy might seem farfetched. Hopkins in this scene absolutely delivers on the idea in this scene showing that Fats is an irresistible urge that he just has to do whether he likes or not. Although whether Fats is supernatural is up to debate, Hopkins effectively humanizes the problem.

After that scene though Corky's insanity gets out of control. Hopkins, although he is portraying a murderer with a split personality, does not turn this into a villainous performance. Rather the last act of Hopkins's work is a big mess, although a big mess in the right way. The last act is basically Corky fighting with himself or with Fats, if Fats really is alive, to attempt to retain control while everything gets out of hand. Hopkins is good in these scenes, but I would be lying if I did not think these are actually the least interesting scenes of his performance. More then anything these are scenes after scenes of explosive emotions of either Corky getting worse or trying to come back to sanity all the while Fats continues as the controller.

The final scenes of the film are a solid showcase for Hopkins as portrays the unbridled craziness in Corky as he keeps going back fourth toward the deep end until the point where he ends it all suddenly. Hopkins does end on a high note as Corky shares some final words with Fats. Hopkins plays the last scene in an oddly tender fashion where Corky and Fats depart in the only way they possibly could. This is a very good performance by Anthony Hopkins that is very different from his later performances. It is another performance from this year though that I feel comes close to greatness but does not quite reach it as I still could not help but think how the original choice, Gene Wilder, would have been in the role.

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Peter Ustinov in Death on the Nile

Peter Ustinov did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for Bafta, for portraying Hercule Poirot in Death on the Nile.

Death on The Nile is a far more enjoyable Agatha Christie adaptation than its predecessor, Murder on the Orient Express, by having a far less dour tone and a much better Poirot as its lead. This time the murder concerns a spoiled heiress on a steamer in Egypt. 

Albert Finney played the role of the famous Belgian sleuth in Murder on the Orient Express in a rather unimpressive performance. Finney's performance tries so hard with the hard accent he gives Poirot and his mannerism that makes him seem at least partially constipated. Finney never really gets past just the character creation of Poirot and his interactions with the other characters always have a little too much distance. I like Albert Finney as an actor but Peter Ustinov makes Finney look like a rank amateur with his performance as the great detective who always seems to find himself among a group of people with murder on the mind.

Ustinov takes a rather light accent for the role that he feels rather natural and flows well in the way he speaks as opposed to Finney who gets dangerously close to sounding like Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. Ustinov's approach works far better in that is not at all off putting which goes even further with his approach as Poirot which is far more welcoming in style then Finney was. Peter Ustinov's Poirot for the portion of the film before the murderer is a man who intakes a great deal of information as well as is told a great deal of information that will be important in the murder case. The way Poirot is able to be such a successful ease dropper is made far more believable because the warmth he brings to his version of Poirot.

Ustinov is rather interesting in that he is almost fatherly at times to one of the murder suspects, but this approach really works for his Poirot. His Poirot is not some distant snooty figure, but rather someone to confide in which makes much more sense for a sleuth of his style. Ustinov is able to insert himself in each situation in the right natural way because his Poirot is a very pleasant man to be around, and even though he is a detective Ustinov makes it convincing that people who ponder a crime would confide in Poirot. Ustinov though as well is very good in being the observer in these early scenes and succeeds in showing the way every little bit of information given is recognized by Poirot. 

Poirot is the smartest man in the room which is a given and Peter Ustinov makes this a given with his performance. Ustinov has the perfect wit in the role of Poirot which he uses both to be very entertaining in the part, but as well as a low key way to suggest the intelligence of Poirot. Ustinov handles every scene where Poirot exchanges words with someone else, especially when he is investigating the murder, a delicate dance where Poirot always outsmarts them, but Ustinov always makes it in such a way that the witness sometimes might not even know it. Ustinov is very effective by keeping a more sardonic sword there, that he unsheathes in just the right way when Poirot needs to offend.

Ustinov's strongest scene of course comes when Poirot does his gathering of suspects in one room scene. Ustinov is like the ring master as a plays every moment with just the right style, giving every revelation the impact it should. Ustinov commands the scene without question and does an excellent job of mixing things up during the course of revealing the murderer. He brings humor with the quick little comments that Poirot makes throughout the course, as well as is imposing in the right way making it clear that Poirot will find his man, but perhaps most importantly he really delivers in the final revelation. It takes a turn to the tragic and Ustinov is quickly and naturally shifts to a dramatic poignancy that gives the end of the story the power it needs.

Ustinov is simply a great guide through the film and makes Death on the Nile a enjoyable murder mystery throughout its course. Ustinov's version of Poirot really lets us in on his investigation and especially the fun from figuring out the murderer. Ustinov's take on Hercule Poirot is a far more reserved approach when it comes to a character as a whole from his slight accent to even the way he looks in the role, this approach works very well for the detective who everyone knows yet no one still seems to notice. Ustinov always remembers the character but also goes about giving just an entertaining performance to follow from the meeting of the other characters, the murder, and the solution. Peter Ustinov is just delightful as Poirot and it is no surprise that he ended up reprising the role for another feature film and several tv movies.

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Dustin Hoffman in Straight Time

Dustin Hoffman did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Max Dembo in Straight Time.

Straight Time is a pretty effective film about a ex-con who tries to go straight but finds too many factors against him. Also it's hard to go wrong when both M. Emmett Walsh and Harry Dean Stanton are in the film.

Dustin Hoffman is not the first actor that comes to mind when thinking of a hardened criminal, but Hoffman commits himself admirably to the role of Max Dembo even though his accent he uses is very inconsistent. What is more important though his his physical portrayal of Max Dembo in which Hoffman carries himself as man who is at least slightly on edge due to his past in crime and the time that he spent in jail. Hoffman carries the right sot of intensity with him to suggest the criminal past, and really early on in his performance is able to rather believable in the role of the career criminal.

Hoffman excels best though in the early scenes of the film where Max is trying to make in the real world while dealing with a particularly vindictive parole officer (Walsh). Hoffman regulates his charm properly to create a fairly sympathetic portrayal of Max as a man who is just trying to do the right thing while he is facing a constant discrimination. Hoffman downplays his usual screen presence in the right way here to establish the state of Max who really is trying his very best to do straight time. Hoffman brings just the right uncomfortable quality in Max to suggest the barrier in Max created by his life.

Due to a misstep and the behavior of the parole officer it is not long before Max falls back to crime. The moment where Max falls back is a rather sudden outburst opposed to a slow descent. Hoffman handles the scene very well by playing it as a hair trigger outrage over the constant unrelenting pressure put upon him by the parole officer. The outburst easily could have seemed like far too much given the jump he takes which is quite an extreme one to say the least, but Hoffman makes the scene convincing through both the why he sets up Max's personality but as well delivery in terms of the emotions of the moment.

Once Max starts though he does not stop and fully returns to crime even going so far as to do armed robberies in daylight. Max joins up with his friend Jerry (Harry Dean Stanton) to do the jobs and this is where a slight problem comes for Hoffman. The problem being that I feel that Harry Dean Stanton steals every single scene he shares with Hoffman even though Jerry is not even all that much of a character as written. Hoffman though is still completely solid in the scene but I do feel he probably could have brought just a little more to the idea of obsession which drives Max to take bigger and bigger risks.

After the obsession brings him to down a very dark path Hoffman is good in portraying Max's reactions to his situation where any hope is gone. What Hoffman reveals in his performance is that Max's choices are something he is unfortunately much more comfortable then he should be. At the beginning of the film Max is trying to find a new lease on life, but at the end that lease is well spent but he is not a different man then he was at the start. Hoffman's fairly calm portrayal of Max at the end instead rightly shows that where Max ends up is where he has been working to his whole life which has been a series of crimes and imprisonments.

Hoffman's work comes to a bit of a impasse where he seems deadlocked in his approach which never quite finds the greatness, I think this role was capable of, but still gives an effective performance which leads Max down the bitter path that his character finds himself in. Hoffman in every scene does deliver exactly as he should in conveying his character's journey even though he never quite makes the leap to turn his very good performance here into a great performance on the same level of his work in Midnight Cowboy for example. This is still a strong performance by Dustin Hoffman even though he never completely reaches the full potential of the role.

Alternate Best Actor 1978: Donald Pleasence in Halloween

Donald Pleasence did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Samuel Loomis in Halloween.

Halloween is a very effective slasher film about an escaped mental patient Michael Myers who seeks to relive his murderous past one Halloween night.

Donald Pleasence actually is not in this film a great deal and I would not argue if someone placed him in supporting for this year. Pleasence though only leads his scenes as they are basically the only scenes without the ominous camera that seems to suggest the vision of the killer. Pleasence plays the doctor who try to treat Michael Myers in the mental institute and later becomes the one who sees that Myers needs to be locked up tight for the protection of everyone. After Myers escape, Pleasence is the hero of the film by being the man trying to track him down and stop him.

The casting of seasoned actors in horror films, with otherwise fairly unknowns in the cast, is quite a common occurrence. What is also a common occurrence though is that veteran actors makes quite known they are only doing for a paycheck and give a terrible performance like Richard Burton in the Exorcist 2 for example. Donald Pleasence though does not such thing bringing the utmost conviction with his performance that neither plays the role just to ham it up, or just to look visibly bored. Pleasence has a very important part in basically bringing the substance to the situation, and adding to the film's grim atmosphere.

Pleasence really brings a dramatic weight to every one of his scenes as Loomis tries his best to warn everyone about the threat that Michael Myers holds for everyone. Some of the lines he has honestly could have gone very wrong as some are rather extreme and quite close to being absurd as written. Pleasence though says every line he has with the utmost conviction and not only make them seem to be natural things that Loomis would say, but he also really gives them a genuine power through his performance. Pleasence finds the truth of every line and completely carries the screenplay as it might of faltered with a lesser actor.

One thing that Pleasence does extremely well here is create Dr. Loomis into his own character even though he really does not have any personal scenes to tell where Loomis has come from. Pleasence makes Loomis as clearly a nervous man who has been changed by his experience. Pleasence suggests this state through his physical performance where he has Loomis always seems a bit on edge although because of that he is the one man ready for the monster that is Michael Myers. Pleasence is incredible because without even showing any scenes in his past gives a portrait of a man who has been shaped through his time with a patient that has made it so he has seen evil incarnate.

A great scene for Donald Pleasence is when he tells his story quickly to a cop and how he came to know that Myers needs to be stopped at any cost. The pronounced yet subtle fear Pleasence is able to convey is remarkable. When Pleasence as Loomis describes the complete lack of morality that he saw in Michael Myers, Pleasence vividly creates the image of Myers for us. Pleasence creates just through his words the hollowness of Michael Myers and creates a greater depth to the monster then would otherwise be there. Pleasence, who barely even interacts with the monster, fleshes out Myers more as a character through his portrayal of the haunted Loomis.

Pleasence plays a most unorthodox hero in that Loomis is a step behind Myers until the end as well as that he does not interact with our heroine Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) until the very last scene. Pleasence though is exceptional in this role in portraying the intense yet very quiet drive in Loomis to try and stop Myers before he goes on a killing spree. Pleasence in an unassuming yet passionate fashion builds perfectly to the moment in which Loomis finally finds Michael and immediately takes action. The ending does not seem rushed in slightest because Pleasence in his scenes properly builds to the moment.

Pleasence delivers in each of his scenes building the atmosphere of the film brilliantly and bringing more to the part of Dr. Loomis then perhaps even the director John Carpenter expected him to. Pleasence serves all the needs of the story to bring substance to the horror story and realizes Loomis fully as a character who could easily have thrived as a character even beyond the strict confines of this film's story. His performance easily could have been the lead to a straight drama just about a doctor dealing with the criminally insane in down to earth fashion. This is just a terrific example of an old pro giving it his all and putting to shame actors who do not give even the slightest effort in this type of role.

Alternate Best Actor 1978

And the Nominees Were Not:

Anthony Hopkins in Magic

Donald Pleasence in Halloween

Dustin Hoffman in Straight Time

Christopher Reeve in Superman

Peter Ustinov in Death on the Nile